Tag: burt

How popular is the baby name Burt in the United States right now? How popular was it historically? Find out using the graph below! Plus, see baby names similar to Burt and check out all the blog posts that mention the name Burt.

The graph will take a few seconds to load, thanks for your patience. (Don't worry, it shouldn't take nine months.) If it's taking too long, try reloading the page.

Popularity of the Baby Name Burt

Number of Babies Named Burt

Posts that Mention the Name Burt

Today’s “Week of Int” name is Quint, which debuted in the SSA’s data in 1959 and saw peak usage in 1964:

1965: 56 baby boys named Quint [rank: 992nd]

1964: 87 baby boys named Quint [rank: 810th]

1963: 51 baby boys named Quint

1962: 13 baby boys named Quint

1961: 5 baby boys named Quint

1960: unlisted

1959: 7 baby boys named Quint [debut]

1958: unlisted

Where did it come from?

There are two answers, actually. And both have to do with secondary characters on TV Westerns.

The first fictional Quint was on Tombstone Territory (1957-1960). Deputy Quint, played by actor Quentin Charles Sondergaard, appeared in two dozen episodes of the show during the second and third seasons. This is what boosted the name onto the charts in the first place.

The second fictional Quint was on Gunsmoke (1955-1975). Quint Asper — a half-white, half-Comanche blacksmith played by a young Burt Reynolds — appeared on 50 episodes of the show from 1962 to 1965. This is when the name saw its highest-ever usage.

The registrar of Providence, Rhode Island, published a series of documents listing all “of the names of persons deceased, born and married in the city of Providence” during years 1866, 1867 and 1868. The series may have been longer, but these are the only documents I could find online.

I’ve finally finished creating a set of rankings using one of the documents — 1867. But before we get to the rankings, here are some stats:

1,547 babies were born in Providence in 1867, going by the number of babies listed in the document itself. According to the document’s introduction, though, the number is 1,625. Not sure what to make of this discrepancy.

1,431 of these babies (713 girls and 718 boys) had names that were registered with the government at the time of publication. The other 116 babies got blank spaces. Either their names hadn’t been registered yet, or they hadn’t been named yet, or perhaps they died young and never received a name.